Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3977 (ALL)

Rahil Ahmad Siddiqi v. State of U. P.

2016-12-09

RAMESH SINHA, REKHA DIXIT

body2016
JUDGMENT An affidavit has been filed by Sri Devesh Kumar, Advocate, along with his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record. on Heard Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri A.K.Sand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.12.2014 registered as Case Crime No.675 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station-Cantt., District Varanasi. Learned AGA has pointed out that petitioner no.1 has earlier approached this Court challenging the FIR of the present case by means of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.4465 of 2015 which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2015 staying the arrest of the petitioner no.1, copy of which has been produced the same on record. He further submits now the petitioner no.1 along with petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have again approached this Court stating that this is the first writ petition filed on petitioner no.1 and Court concealing the fact that has already approached this Court and filed the said writ petition, hence, some exemplary cost be imposed on petitioner no.1. He further stated that filing of earlier petition by the petitioner no.1 cannot be ignored and petitioner no.1 was fully conscious about the same, hence some exemplary cost should be imposed on the petitioner no.1, to which learned counsel for petitioners tendered his unconditional apology on his behalf as well as on behalf of his client. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the petitioner no.1 has no knowledge about filing of the earlier petition, hence the present writ petition is dismissed with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Rahil Ahmad Siddiqui, son of Late Pyare Lal, resident of D-50/119, Mohalla Kazipur Kalan, Police Station Dashaswmegh, District Varanasi with an exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by him within one month from today in the court of C.J.M. concerned which shall be given to the Legal Service Cell of the District, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Accordingly, the present writ petition with respect to petitioner no.1 stands dismissed. Accordingly, the present writ petition with respect to petitioner no.1 stands dismissed. So far as petitioner no.2 and 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are the witness and they have not filed any other petitioner on their behalf. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has admitted the fact of compromise. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The fact about the compromise entered into between the parties cannot be verified by this Court. Moreover, the fact of compromise can be very well taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer while submitting the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court which shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. The parties are directed to approach the Investigating Officer of the case. However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but they shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.